Santa Monica Gunman Painted As “Gun Nut”

The mainstream media loves to re-enforce the stereotype of all gun owners being a different kind of person, not “normal.” It makes gun control advocates’ persecution of gun owners easier to think of them as untermenschen, which explains why they’re so quick to call for the complete extermination of gun owners. Just days after the Santa Monica shootings that left six people dead, the media is once again reinforcing that association between gun owners and mass murderers for the low-information voter . . .

A family friend of the gunman who killed four people during a Santa Monica shooting rampage said he had an intense interest in guns.

The friend, who asked not to be identified, said [the suspect], 24, had “a fascination with guns. We were all worried about it…. Everyone is wondering where he got the money for the weapons.”

See what they did there? The thing that most concerned the friend was the shooter’s interest in guns, not his behavior or general mental state. The fact that he liked guns was the only tip-off they needed to let them know something was wrong.

The message is pretty clear: people who are interested in guns are potential mass murderers. Remember that.

comments

There’s no call for “Extermination of gun owners” in that link…you’re doing the same thing you accuse the anti-gunners of doing. Guy is a gun owner saying violently overthrowing the government is treason, which I don’t agree with, but it’s not saying “exterminate gun owners” so where’d you even get that?

Well he’s doing the anti-gun thing that says a more powerful military can’t be beaten by people with little technology. You know, because Afghanistan/Iraq/Vietnam amongst others haven’t beaten back the U.S. before.

I see your point re: assymetrical warfare; however, you’re overlooking 1) the difference in casualties between the better equipped regulars and the insurgents and 2) the fact that the US hasn’t fought a war to a decisive conclusion since 1945, and the reasons for that are political, not military.

A poorly armed insurgency or resistance movement can effectively resist a better armed force, but they have to be prepared to accept high casualty rates to do so.

That’s a weak justification, William. Swindell was talking about NRA members not “all gun owners.” Besides, it was hyperbole which he later apologized for.

Nick, on the other hand is quite serious in pushing the poor-persecuted-gun-owner meme. Along the way he twists the part about the friend’s concern. It wasn’t simply because he had a fascination for guns, it was because HE had a fascination for guns. Presumably the friend was able to determine the potential for violence, which combined with the guns spelled trouble.

Mike, you misunderstand Godwin’s law. The “law” itself isn’t all that controversial, although it has exceptions. The law states…..

“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches.”

Experience tells us this is true. As I said, there are exceptions. But, that’s not where the fallacy lies. It has taken a corollary which assumes the first person to make the comparison has automatically lost the discussion/argument.

This thinking is itself the fallacy. It hides history and attempts to invalidate legitimate arguments and comparisons. It has now come to be “Never again speak of Nazi’s or Hitler, else you’ve lost the argument.” Are we to also have a Stalin axiom? Mao? Pot? What sort of sophist believes we shouldn’t understand and discuss parallels to such regimes?

So it seems you Mike are incapable of “logic, thinking, and research” too.

Also I want to add that Godwin’s law makes no distinction between silly or accurate comparisons to Nazis. People try to misuse this law as a trump card to lazily and falsely defeat a argument.

IMHO Nick made a good comparisons as to how the gun grabbers are trying to paint us gun owners as “nuts”. That something has to be wrong with you to like guns, that you are sick, flawed, or inferior. They are pushing a starwman image of gun owners as a form of social control. Which is what the Nazis did with the Jews and other groups they didn’t like.

The gunman appears to be more organically crazy than Muslim-induced crazy. This guy has been on LE radar for years. This is always the case with theses shooters. Everyone afterwards talks about how nutso the shooter was.

It’s so surprising and interesting that big media has seized on the “gun nut” emphasis.

All the “local” media reports I saw emphasized that those who knew the shooter spoke to his mental imbalance and even the law enforcement statements I heard described him as mentally unstable as if he was known to them. I heard no local media statements or interviews refer to him as a “gun nut”!

That tells me that big media is slanting the story leftward to promote their anti gun biases.

Be careful in connecting names that are transliterated from languages that don’t use the Latin alphabet. Especially Arabic ones.

That said, while I am sure that the media are following the Fort Hood shooter protocol here, I’d look a lot more closely at the guy’s mental illness than his religion or ancestry. I’ve run across plenty of young middle eastern guys with regrettable attitudes, but who don’t commit acts of terrorism.

I expect nothing less from the LA Times and other like-minded “media” organizations. Interesting how the major news propaganda outlets went bat shit crazy over the Ricin case for days and then a little blurb here and there when the perpetrator didn’t fit their envisioned narrative. Leave it to these clowns to push their prejudicial beliefs while they have the chance in order to cement their opinions onto the collective.

Speaking of the Ricin case, I found it more than a little telling that while every article I read about her arrest made mention of the verbage of the threating letters she sent, they make no mention of seizing guns from her home. Hmmm.

As usual, the speculative “reporting” on the front-end of this story was pure bliss for many with anti-gun beliefs. I won’t hold my breath for any retractions from those that called for the imprisonment of NRA members and all the other anti-gun, irrational, emotionally-charged drivel that wasn’t fit to print… but was printed anyway.

Not *GASP* GUNS! Anything but guns! How can you be interested in GUNS?!?

That is where this country is headed if the antis get their way, gun owners will be treated worse than sex offenders or people who pork sheep. The fact that you own a gun, shoot a gun or are interested in guns will be so socially stigmatizing that literally millions of gun owners will be “forced” into the closet.

It is just possible that the reverse of the MSM’s characterization of the typical gun owner is descriptive of the typical non gun owner. As the housecat never really matures and considers it’s human provider as it’s mother, so the typical non independent citizen never really matures fully as a capable human being. They remain dependent on their government (local, state, federal). In the normal course of life, and if they are very fortunate, they never need to confront their dependency, thus moving from cradle to grave without really knowing or experiencing complete maturity.

This guy was said to have had an “Arsenal”…..I review the pics of he’s so called “Arsenal” and it consisted of an AR-15, another AR-15 Upper (WTF are you going to do with another upper in a shooting rampage), a black powder revolver (what the main stream media kept referring to as a “Large Caliber Handgun”), and several AR-15 mags.

The makeup of his “Aresenal” is a good indicator the guy was only nuts (aka crazy, loony toons) and by no means a “Gun Nut”.

What the hell did he plan on doing with his additional AR Upper? And the black powder revolver???

Greater than 1 firearm,
or
1 baby-killing, mass-murdering, NRA-funded and distributed assault rifle of war and death and mass destruction,
or
more than 7 rounds of ammunition (soon to be more than 2 rounds),
or
more than 1 magazine clip
or
anything “high powered”
or
any firearm that is polymer or black in color
etc, etc, etc

The extra AR upper and black powder gun were probably thrown on the table before the press event so Feinstein can target “AR components and off the books handguns” in her next gun grab. Even a nutzo isnt gonna try to change uppers in the middle of a spree killing. Remember, still no pics/video of Adam Lanza entering Sandy Hook, and the CT gov just SEALED all the records on the case. But we can trust the authorities.

Nicely said re “nut” vs. “gun nut”–and I did the double-take when I saw the picture of his “arsenal” at cnn.com: an adidas bag (black, of course) full of mags, a random AR-15 upper, and what looks like a by-God Colt Model 1860 repro black powder (“large caliber”) revolver.

Try again. That was a by-God Remington 1858. And a good pic of it I saw shows it to be loaded. Assuming it revolves in the same direction as a Colt, then it was never fired.

And I don’t know what is “misleading” about calling it a large caliber handgun. Both the Remington and the 1860 Colt were about as powerful as the .45 LC (blackpowder load of 35 gr.), which in turn is about as powerful as a .45 ACP.

Also, am I incorrect in perceiving that the “extra” upper is missing the attachment point for the buffer tube as well as missing a bolt? And that it may not, therefore, be an extra at all, but what remained of his rifle after the shoot out?

They say he had “an intense interest in guns.” Big deal, I had an intense interest in the female body years before I had any meaningful experience with it. At what point did he actually acquire those guns and how?

Good pics. A couple of clarifications. The Remington has a cartridge conversion cylinder, so it must be loaded with .45 LC. You can get the gun without a background check, but not the cartridge conversion, and it has to be processed through an FFL. So there is still the question of how he managed to obtain firearms. Private sale at a gun show is no explanation–California has a universal background check requirement for all transactions.

The upper looks the same as the one on the rifle he walked into the library with. Moreover, if this is an “extra,” where is the rifle?